DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 is acknowledged. It is further acknowledged that Applicant cancels claims 8-20, which appear to be original claims 9-20, as claim 8 was missing from the original claim listing. New claims 21-31 are presented that appear to reasonably mirror the canceled claims and thus belong to Group I. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 21-31 are examined herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 & 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Grouping
Claim 1 is representative. Claims 2-7 and 21-31 either depend therefrom or recite the same or substantially similar subject matter in system and computer-readable medium form. Accordingly, the claims rise or fall together for the purpose of this rejection.
Step 1 – Statutory Category?
Claims 1-7, 21, 22 are directed to processes. Claims 23-30 are directed to a machine. Claim 31 is directed to an article of manufacturer. Accordingly, the claims fall within statutory classes of invention, and thus pass Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
Claim 1 recites establishing first computer game system settings associated with a first player profile, receiving game play signals from a controller, and responsive to the game play signals, changing to second computer game system settings associated with a second profile. Claim 31 recites substantially the same. Claim 23 recites the same basic concept with presentation of a game associated with an account, i.e. presenting or switching a computer game according to first system settings for a first player and second system settings for a second player based on detection of which player is using the account.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claims encompass observing gameplay behavior and using that behavior as the basis for selecting a different set of settings. The claims recite the mental process of: observing a person’s gameplay behavior, evaluating that behavior to determine or select which player profile corresponds to the behavior, and selecting the settings associated with that player profile. This is akin to collect information, analyzing the information to identify a player/profile, and automatically modifying settings based on that determination. This is an abstract mental process or information processing concept, and to the extend the claims may be viewed as organizing game-account activity, they also implicate a method of organizing human activity.
That is, these are observations, evaluations, judgements, comparisons, and selections that can practically be performed by a person. For example, a person familiar with two players could observer their controller-use behavior, recognize which person is playing, and manually select that person’s known preferences. The fact that claims obtain the behavioral information electronically does not change the mental character of the underlying evaluation and select.
This characterization is consistent with FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., where collecting records of human activity, analyzing the records under rules involving users and time intervals, and acting on the resulting determination was held directed to an abstract idea. It is also consistent with Electric Power Group, which explains that collecting information of specified content and analyzing that information through mental steps constitutes abstract information processing.
Notably, the dependent claims further specify or reinforce the abstract evaluation. For example:
claims 2 & 25 specify that signals control a player character, which merely identifies the technological environment and source of the behavioral information.
claims 3 & 26 specify that the information includes particular controller buttons and timestamps, which narrow the content of the information being observed without reciting a particular technical way of analyzing that information, such that limiting collected information to particular content does not remove the information analysis process from the abstract idea indication.
claims 4 & 27 specify a gap in gameplay as a condition for changing settings, which is an observable circumstance or rule.
claim 21 recites determining that a controller input pattern corresponds to the second player profile, which again is comparing observed pattern information with known profile information as an evaluation or judgement within the mental process.
claim 22 recites asking for input concerning the settings and adjusting the settings, where obtaining the settings or preferences and modifying aa set of preferences accordingly is itself an observation and selection process.
claim 24 recites detecting the player based on gameplay signals, which appears to directly recite the abstract player identification evaluation portion of the process.
Other dependent claims similarly fall, such as briefly: claims 5, 7, 28, & 30 do not materially alter what the claims are directed to and amount to additional elements of ancillary activity, e.g. specifying a specific setting type. Claims 6 & 29 recite use of a machine-learning (ML) model, where the ML model operation itself need not be characterized as a mental process, rather, those claims continue to recite the same abstract determination process of selecting a player profile or settings associated with a player based on gameplay behavior and merely invoke the ML model as the tool for carrying out that determination. See also MPEP 2106.05(g)-(h).
Accordingly, claims 1-7 & 21-31 recite an abstract idea within at least the mental process grouping.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional recited elements including at least a computer game system, controller, play profile, account, processor, memory, display, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The components merely provide an environment in which the behavior observation and profile selection are performed. The requirement to change or switch to selected system settings is merely the computerized application of the result of the abstract evaluation. It does not recite an improvement in how a game system stores, retrieves, synchronizes, or applies such settings. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly distinguished a concrete improvement in how computer functions are performed from claims that merely invoke ordinary receiving, storing, processing, outputting, and transmitting functions to achieve a result. In the 2026 precedential GoTV Streaming decision, even claims reciting tailored configurations and rendering commands were held abstract where the claims did not provide a concrete improvement in how the computer or rending functions were carried and instead used functional language focused on the result. The present claims appear even more result-oriented as they state the system detects or responds to a different player and switches settings, but does not recite how the player is reliably distinguished or how the settings transition is technically implemented, amongst other broad recitations. Further, respect to the ML model dependent claims 6 & 29, the ML model is recited as a functional black box for producing the desired player/profile determination. Claims reciting generic use of ML models and AI have been deemed ineligible by the courts, where the claims do nothing more than apply established ML models to a new data environment. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute v. Amazon.com.
Consequently, the claims do not recite a particular technical solution, a specific improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer or game system itself. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f).
Step 2B – Do the claims recite significantly more?
The claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims merely instruct implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components in a conventional computer-game environment. The processor, memory, computer-readable medium, display, controller, and game system are recited at a high level of generality and their claimed functions of receiving input, storing profile information, processing the input, retrieving system settings, presenting content, changing system settings, displaying prompts, and the like, as recited in the claims, are ordinary computer functions used to implement the abstract idea. No claims recite an unconventional algorithm, unconventional arrangement of the computing components, a particular machine architecture, or other inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 & 21-31 are directed to an abstract idea and are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 21-28, 30, & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0118026; hereinafter “Lukas”) in view of Shepard et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0012310; hereinafter “Shepard”).
Claims 1, 23, & 31: Lukas discloses a video game system having a game console, an audiovisual system including a display and game controllers communicatively coupled to the console (figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0049-0057). Lukas also discloses that touch pad input received from a game controller may be used for both user identification and gaming input (paragraphs 0051-0053, 0058-0061).
Lukas discloses automatically identifying a particular user from controller input. In particular, in an automatic user identification mode (paragraph 0109), the system captures controller touch pad input, correlates the processed input to user profiles without user interaction, and selects a user and profile, based on that correlation. Lukas discloses that profiles include a user ID, user game preferences, controller input characteristics, and game setting preferences (paragraph 0107).
Lukas further discloses that, after identifying the user, the gaming system automatically enacts the identified user’s custom game data or settings (paragraph 0072). Lukas discloses selecting a user from a plurality of stored users using pattern matching of user data derived from controller input, selecting a game setting based on the selected user, and applying the selected setting to a corresponding game operation (paragraph 0121). The game settings may include game difficulty, game entry point, controller button functions, controller touch paid input functions, game selection options, and favorite game settings (paragraph 0122).
Lukas however does not appear to teach a “computer system account” associated with first and second player profiles.
Shepard, however, teaches the claimed shared account having multiple profiles arrangement, Specifically, Shepard teaches that a family may share one account, the one account being associated with multiple profiles, such as one for each family member (paragraph 0078). Shepard further teaches that each profile may maintain separate game information, including game progress, achieves, high scores, etc. Shepard also teaches that, once an account is logged in, the system may access information concerning the profiles available under that account (paragraph 0080). Although Shepard ordinarily permits user selection of a profile, it does teach automatic profile selection where a default profile is available or only one profile exists (paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Lukas’ automatic controller input based user profile identification in the shared account with multiple profile arrangement of Shepard. The combination would have predictably allowed a gaming system to identify which family member or other persons was using a shared account and to automatically apply that person’s profile-based game settings, rather than requiring manual selection of a profile, settings, etc. Shepard expressly supports such motivation by teaching that a single account may include multiple separate profiles for individual family members, while Lukas supplies an automatic mechanism for determining which stored profile corresponds to a user currently operating the game controller. The combination would reduce manual profile selection steps while preserving separate game information and user specific preferences or settings for multiple users of one account.
Regarding claim 23, all of the above applies, as Lukas discloses presenting games (paragraphs 0055-0057), it would have further been obvious in the resulting Lukas/Shepard combination to present a game using first settings when the controller input matches a first profile of a single account and automatically switch to second settings when control input matches a second profile of the account, such as in said automatic user identification mode.
Regarding claim 31, all of the above applies, wherein the Lukas/Shepard combination clearly teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that when executed cause the process as detailed above to be performed.
Claim 24: Lukas discloses receiving touch pad input from a game controller and processing the input to identify a user through pattern recognition (paragraphs 0090-0092, 0098-0102). Lukas separately and expressly also teaches that the control touch pad input is used as gaming input to operate a video game (paragraph 0112). Accordingly, Lukas discloses detecting which player is playing on the single user account based at least in part on game play signals from a game controller.
Claims 2 & 25: The combination of Lukas and Shepard is directed to a gaming system, thus, while not explicitly reciting a “player character of the computer game”, it would have been an obvious matter to have applied the combination gaming system to a game of the type in which the gaming inputs from the game controller are operating a player character as one such obvious implementation thereof.
Claims 3 & 26: The combination of Lukas and Shepard teaches that the game play signals comprise specific buttons pushed, as the Lukas system transmits pressed buttons or touch pads signals (paragraph 0058). The combination does not expressly teach “timestamps”, however, as the signals are sent wirelessly, standard transmission practices include packeting data with timestamps. The Examiner respectfully positions it would have been a routine obvious architectural implementation to explicitly timestamp game input signals being wirelessly transmitted from the game controller to the game system.
Claims 4 & 27: In a broadest reasonable interpretation a “gap” fails to set forth any specific scope or bounds, as such any time a first player using the controller stops using the controller and a second player uses the controller, any time between such is interpreted as the gap in play of the computer game, such that when the second player utilizes the controller the gaming system of the Lukas/Shepard combination would change to the second system settings associated with the second player in response to the gap in play.
Claims 5 & 28: Lukas teaches user specific game settings include game difficulty, game entry point, controller button functions, controller touch pad input functions, game selection options, and favorite game settings (paragraph 0122). Accordingly, in one or more interpretations, Lukas discloses second game settings comprising at least controller settings, suggested titles, or game presets including difficulty. Luke also teaches user specific game selection and customized user interface or menu functionality (paragraph 0072).
Claims 7, 22, & 30: Lukas teaches an intermediate identification operation in which the system queries a user to confirm that the system correctly selected the user identify based on the controller input (paragraph 0108). Luke also teaches a display for presenting the game environment (paragraph 0057). It would have been obvious in the Lukas/Shepard combination to have presented Lukas’ confirmation query on the display after applying the settings associated with the automatically selected profile. The modification would have permitted the user to confirm the profile determination and the settings enacted for that profile. Such a confirmation is a predictable use of Lukas’ disclosed identity confirmation mechanism in the profile/settings environment of the combination (e.g. a prompt of “has the correct player been identified” and “have the correct settings associated with the player been enacted”). Regarding claim 22, it would have also been straightforward obvious to have offered a means for correction if the correctness of the selected settings was inaccurate, such that once the prompt requests input regarding selected settings and the input is akin to the settings being incorrect, enabling a means to adjust the selected settings.
Claim 21: Lukas discloses processing touch pad input by pattern matching to identify a user (paragraphs 0098-0102). Lukas further teaches correlating processed touch pad input to stored user profiles and selecting a user based on the correlation without further user interaction (paragraph 0109). Lukas also teaches that controller input may comprise a sequence of user touches and that the sequence may be used as gaming input and to generate data for altering game operation (paragraphs 0113, 0124). Thus, Lukas teaches determining that a game-controller input pattern corresponds to a selected profile before selecting and applying the game settings associated with that profile (paragraph 0121).
Claims 6 & 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas and Shepard, as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 21-28, 30, & 31, where applicable, in further view of Beltran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0219087; hereinafter “Beltran”).
Claims 6 & 29: The combination of Lukas and Shepard discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing inputting the game play signals to at least one machine learning (ML) model and receiving the second player profile from the ML model responsive to the inputting, the second player profile being associated with the second system settings, thus receiving the second system settings accordingly. Nonetheless, Beltran teaches training and using an AI model for a gaming application. Beltran teaches the training state data and input state data can include controller inputs, game state data, game play progress, user profile information, and other information related to gameplay (paragraphs 0076, 0083, 0086-0090, 0103, 0110). Beltran further teaches receiving input state data during game play, applying that input state data to a trained AI model to generate an output and analyzing the output to perform a player related action (paragraphs 0007-0009, 0105-0106, 0110). More particularly, Beltran teaches a player profiler that analyzes the output from the trained AI model and/or the input state data to determine player profiles for respective players. The player profiles may reflect player characteristic metrics including accuracy, speed of generating input control sequences, reaction time, consistency, target transition time, game play reactions, and player skill (paragraphs 0111, 0116, 0120, 0123, 0132-0133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed Beltran’s trained AI-model player profiler technique to perform or augment Lukas’ controller input pattern matching. The modification would have predictably improved automated selection among separate family member profiles maintained under one shared account as taught by Shepard, particularly where the input data comprises current controller inputs, controller input sequences, game state data and/or gameplay characteristics. The combination would use controller gameplay signals as input to an ML model, generate a player profile from the ML-based analysis, select the corresponding family member profile, and apply the game settings associated with that profile as taught by Lukas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights